Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's hard to respond when so much of what people say here is based on half-truths and myths--the idea that Sacramento was always a "government town," that the Railyards were somehow already abandoned when they were a major employer (perhaps because they are such obvious physical evidence that we weren't always a government town!) or that arenas promote economic development when study after study proves that they don't.
New restaurants, clubs and lofts only go so far--but they are a more important catalyst, when taken as an aggregate, than an arena. The arts and culture economy is an economic engine in its own right, and it tends to be more recession-proof than other economic sectors, as we have seen that sector grow prodigiously in Sacramento even during the past five years of economic downturn. They also become the basis for attracting private-sector interest--firms locate to cultural capitals like Austin because they want to be around those creative engines.
Other studies point out that the economic effects of arenas don't cause a negative when they aren't present--the amount of money spent on entertainment in a region stays constant, it just gets spent in other ways (a family goes to a movie or bowling vs. going to a game, an individual sees a band at a club vs. an arena) but with a net economic change of essentially zero.
And if you're a businessman, and your "bottom line" is based on self-esteem, what other people are doing, and what you feel you deserve rather than what you can actually afford, and the real bottom line in dollars and cents, you're not a good businessman.
In other words, there is a big difference between propaganda ("economic impact studies") and facts (peer-reviewed economic studies)--the arena cheerleaders love the propaganda, while the arena critics are the ones who love facts.
One only has to look at the experience of cities like Indianapolis to see how investment in their downtowns have translated to greater attention on the national scale.
This is an investment that goes far more than just the dollars and cents of the new arena. It goes to attracting investment and attention from businesses, tourists and young people who are attracted to places that can sustain energy. If you're only concerned about the viability of the arena itself, you are not looking at the big picture.
Sacramento will certainly be worse off without the Kings, we all know that much is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN.
I'm sorry but this is the talk of those resigned to their fate.
Do I think an arena will make Sacramento equivalent to New York or SF? Never in our lifetimes or our grandchildrens. However, when cities like Indianapolis are getting more national attention and praise than Sacramento, you know we have a real issue here.
Why? I don't really see how Indianapolis having it's day is "a real issue here." Who cares? Good for them. The issue is whether the $600 million, I believe, was worth Indianapolis' day. I say no. You say at any cost, or am I mistaken about that.
Quote:
If Sacramento wants to be competitive as a city in getting investment, in getting jobs, in attracting people both to live here and to visit here, then it cannot just sit idle in stagnation resigned to a fate of mediocrity as you are suggesting. I absolutely do not accept your argument in any way. I see better for this city and I am throwing my full support into getting the arena built, into catalysing the first step in developing the railyards and into building a vibrant urban core for this city. Is the arena the only solution to solving this city's woes, NO, but it is one of several and an important one.
Right. So let's focus on attracting jobs. The Arena will provide very few jobs for the price. I'm generally against government jobs bills. The first steps in developing the railyards was cleaning up the toxic waste and building infrastructure (bridges, roads, possibly light rail). That is underway. Step 2 is setting up the right conditions within Sacramento that make it an attractive place to live and do business. You certainly can do that by continuing what Sacramento has done (high crime, bad schools, few city services, one, of if not the worst, business climate in the nation)... the "we know it sucks, but we'll give you a free building if you come" approach. Problem is there's not enough public dollars to do much that way. An arena will do nothing to change any of those factors. It'll just be a horribly run city with a downtown arena instead of a horribly run city with an arena in Natomas.
As a former Sacramentan and one who is decidedly not an NBA fan nor a fan of any professional sports at all, if a new arena, properly placed and reasonably funded can help jump-start the economy for the city and help put it on the map then I'm all for it. My concern is and has always been, as Webdev put it, the stagnation and what I've always perceived to be lack of far-sighted vision and planning of the city "leadership" (that's as gift) and while we've since moved 2,000 miles away we still have family in and about Sacramento. It would be lovely, in the coming year, to visit and be able to enjoy true progress. New restaurants, clubs and artist's lofts can only go so far and are strictly local. The city needs to broaden its horizons well beyond being merely a government town.
But that's the is it economically worth it argument. That's an pretty much undisputed no, it's not worth it. Tax payer funded arenas are never economically worth it. The Pro Arena argument seems to have degenerated to "We know it isn't worth it, but we don't care. Build it at any cost anyway for the intangible benefits. If you don't build it (insert fear mongering here)."
One only has to look at the experience of cities like Indianapolis to see how investment in their downtowns have translated to greater attention on the national scale.
This is an investment that goes far more than just the dollars and cents of the new arena. It goes to attracting investment and attention from businesses, tourists and young people who are attracted to places that can sustain energy. If you're only concerned about the viability of the arena itself, you are not looking at the big picture.
Sacramento will certainly be worse off without the Kings, we all know that much is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN.
No, that is not certain, and the facts about the effects of sports franchises and entertainment dollars show that your statement is clearly not true.
Sports franchises are not the only possible investment in downtowns-ithere are many, including development of transportation and transit infrastructure, promotion of infill housing, and local amenity upgrades like parks. Sports arenas are demonstrably a poor investment if the intent is to draw more investment to a neighborhood. Those focused on building an arena at all costs are willing to ignore the big picture--the reality that it doesn't draw the investment that its proponents promise.
An arena is not made to generate revenue for a city. Neither is an airport terminal or a light rail.
The average Sacramento resident rides an airplane less than once every 3 years. Only 2% of the metro population rides light rail. A small fraction like to go to events at arenas. That does not mean these are bad endeavors. It adds to the quality of life-big time.
If the kings leave, powerbalance will go from hosting roughly 200 events a year, to being empty for the majority of the year. An arena needs to be built some where. Cal expo, the rail yards, where ever, just get it done.
I do think that the downtown area is an ideal location. Central city stadiums often do provide the catalyst for redevelopment. It happened in San Diego with their ball park, it happend in SF at the China basin, and San Jose is trying to do it at Diridon. It certainly adds to the vibrancy of the core as well.
There is a huge difference between 18,000 people descending on downtown before and after a game vs everyone getting in their cars and going home.
I love how people say "don't let the door hit you on the way out". Well that's what people in Sacramento do, after they go to college and they want to find a job in the private sector or they make a lot of money, they leave. That's why the city is filled with timid, dull, boring people. It suffers from rural brain drain and in many ways is still a cow town with a cow town mentality.
an arena is not made to generate revenue for a city. Neither is an airport terminal or a light rail.
The average sacramento resident rides an airplane less than once every 3 years. Only 2% of the metro population rides light rail. A small fraction like to go to events at arenas. That does not mean these are bad endeavors. It adds to the quality of life-big time.
If the kings leave, powerbalance will go from hosting roughly 200 events a year, to being empty for the majority of the year. An arena needs to be built some where. Cal expo, the rail yards, where ever, just get it done.
I do think that the downtown area is an ideal location. Central city stadiums often do provide the catalyst for redevelopment. It happened in san diego with their ball park, it happend in sf at the china basin, and san jose is trying to do it at diridon. It certainly adds to the vibrancy of the core as well.
There is a huge difference between 18,000 people descending on downtown before and after a game vs everyone getting in their cars and going home.
I love how people say "don't let the door hit you on the way out". Well that's what people in sacramento do, after they go to college and they want to find a job in the private sector or they make a lot of money, they leave. That's why the city is filled with timid, dull, boring people. It suffers from rural brain drain and in many ways is still a cow town with a cow town mentality.
I love how people say "don't let the door hit you on the way out". Well that's what people in Sacramento do, after they go to college and they want to find a job in the private sector or they make a lot of money, they leave. That's why the city is filled with timid, dull, boring people. It suffers from rural brain drain and in many ways is still a cow town with a cow town mentality.
Yup. That's why I left. It's not a bad place, but people who graduate college are generally looking for jobs. And usually not working at the concession stand part-time at the arena Sacramento already has. As you say, the arenas don't provide the jobs. That's why Telephone Booth Park was built completely with private funds. Higher income = higher ticket prices, more people with higher income = more TV and merchandise money. All of a sudden you're talking about a market that actually can support a pro-franchise rather than a market like Sacramento that can't without corporate welfare dollars.
The arena won't do anything about being a "city filled with timid, dull, boring people." We already have one. It won't do anything about "rural brain drain, cow town mentality". We already have one. Let's actually focusing on that and not build arenas which don't address the problems.
The point is not that transportation projects generate revenue, but that they DO draw investment in a community, whereas sports stadia DO NOT draw investment. Growth around the SF stadium had more to do with the expansion of transit infrastructure and the real estate boom. And the are around San Diego's new arena isn't much better than before construction--still plentyof vacancies.
Why would Arco be completely shuttered if the Kings left? The city would own it, and it would be no less useful for non-basketball events than it is now--and while it might not be your favorite place to see a concert or monster truck pull, the fact is that they do happen there. The main difference is that the Maloofs would no longer be the stadium operator and responsibility for its maintenance would fall to the city (or, more likely, a new event promoter.) There is really no reason why it couldn't continue as an events center even without the Kings.
If you live in one of Sacramento's suburbs, you live in a cow town whether or not the Kings stay. But Sacramento is not a cow town and never was, that's just a ridiculous lie told by people trying to shame and bully the gullible into making a very bad economic decision. Don't buy into the lie!
Personally, I don't see why anyone would want anything to do with the Sacramento Kings to begin with. They always blow, and have never been relevant in the slightest manner outside of that town.....not to mention Sacramento, CA has to be THE least desirable place I can think of for a pro hoops player to set up shop. How in the world did Sacramento ever get a big 4 pro sports team anyway? Take them to Seattle. If you're from Sacto & wanna see pro sports, make a day of it. Hop on 80 west and enjoy being so close to the Bay Area.
Personally, I don't see why anyone would want anything to do with the Sacramento Kings to begin with. They always blow, and have never been relevant in the slightest manner outside of that town.....not to mention Sacramento, CA has to be THE least desirable place I can think of for a pro hoops player to set up shop. How in the world did Sacramento ever get a big 4 pro sports team anyway? Take them to Seattle. If you're from Sacto & wanna see pro sports, make a day of it. Hop on 80 west and enjoy being so close to the Bay Area.
Well, how did Oklahoma City or Jacksonville land a major professional team? Sacramento is a lot more attractive and beautiful than OKC and Jax. But to answer your question: a wealthy Sacramento businessman Greg Lukenbill bought the team and moved them here from Kansas City.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
